On Wed, 2 Nov 2005, Aniruddha Bohra wrote:
> James Lentini wrote: > > > On Wed, 2 Nov 2005, Aniruddha Bohra wrote: > > > > > > > Hello, > > > The following is the log for a request I am sending, > > > > > > The number of IOVs for req is 2. And the iov is shown below : > > > > > > REQ[0] = (0xb5f3f100, 48, 0xca88003b)^M > > > REQ[1] = (0xb5f3f2b8, 152, 0xca88003b)^M > > > > > > dapl_ep_post_send (0x8087110, 2, 0x808b300, 0xb5f3f6b4, 0)^M > > > dapl_ep_post_send : LOCALIOV[0] = (0xb5f3f100, 48, 0xca88003b)^M > > > dapl_ep_post_send : LOCALIOV[1] = (0xb5f3f2b8, 152, 0xca88003b)^M > > > post_snd: ep 0x8087110 op 2 ck 0x8087374 sgs 2 l_iov 0x808b300 r_iov > > > 0xbf964290 f 0^M > > > post_snd: ep 0x8087110 cookie 0x8087374 segs 2 l_iov 0x808b300^M > > > post_snd_localiov: lkey 0xca88003b va 0xb5f3f100 len 48 ^M > > > post_snd: lkey 0xca88003b va 0xb5f3f100 len 48 ^M > > > post_snd_localiov: lkey 0xca88003b va 0xb5f3f2b8 len 152 ^M > > > post_snd: lkey 0xca88003b va 0xb5f3f2b8 len 152 ^M > > > post_snd: op 0x2 flags 0x2 sglist 0xbf9641b0, 2^M > > > post_snd: returned^M > > > dapl_ep_post_send () returns 0x0^M > > > dapl_evd_wait (0x8083ca0, -1, 1, 0xbf9642d0, 0xbf9642cc)^M > > > dapl_evd_wait: EVD 0x8083ca0, CQ 0x8083da0^M > > > cq_object_wait: CQ channel 0x8081290 time -1^M > > > cq_object_wait: RET evd 0x8083ca0 ibv_cq 0x8083da0 ibv_ctx (nil) Success^M > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<^M > > > dapl_evd_dto_callback : CQE ^M > > > work_req_id 134771572^M > > > status 12^M > > > > > > > Status 12 is IBV_WC_RETRY_EXC_ERR. > > > > Are you sure you can communicate over IB? Do pings over IPoIB work, etc.? > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ ping -b 10.10.10.255 > WARNING: pinging broadcast address > PING 10.10.10.255 (10.10.10.255) 56(84) bytes of data. > 64 bytes from 10.10.10.12: icmp_seq=0 ttl=64 time=0.034 ms > 64 bytes from 10.10.10.13: icmp_seq=0 ttl=64 time=8.98 ms (DUP!) > 64 bytes from 10.10.10.12: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.033 ms > 64 bytes from 10.10.10.13: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.095 ms (DUP!) > 64 bytes from 10.10.10.12: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.025 ms > 64 bytes from 10.10.10.13: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.096 ms (DUP!) > > --- 10.10.10.255 ping statistics --- I don't see DUPs when I ping the broadcast address. Is it possible another machine is configured with the same IP address? Do you only have the one OpenIB node? > 3 packets transmitted, 3 received, +3 duplicates, 0% packet loss, time 2020ms > rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.025/1.544/8.986/3.328 ms, pipe 2 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ ifconfig ib0 > ib0 Link encap:UNSPEC HWaddr > 00-00-04-04-FE-80-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00 > inet addr:10.10.10.12 Bcast:10.255.255.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 > inet6 addr: fe80::202:c901:81e:7471/64 Scope:Link > UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:2044 Metric:1 > RX packets:4 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 > TX packets:77 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 > collisions:0 txqueuelen:128 > RX bytes:308 (308.0 b) TX bytes:4788 (4.6 KiB) > > My target is the filer, which does not respond to pings (10.10.10.11). > > Aniruddha > _______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list [email protected] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
